Jarvis West Fumble

[cycloneworld]

Exactly my point. It is a judgement call. It is not an issue of "understanding the rule" or not. This is not a simple "by rule" situation. The rule as written created a new "gray area" as stated earlier in the thread that I responded to.


Many of us believe first the on field official, then the replay official, erred in their judgement and called the play incorrectly. In our judgement, Jarvis fully possessed the ball with his knees on the ground long enough for the play to be ruled dead at that point.

Reasonable people can disagree on that judgement, but many of us do get offended when we are told we dont understand the rule.

You are right it is a judgement call. But I don't see how people can watch that play and think West was down before the K-State player hit him. It all happened simultaneously. That play is the definition of "process of the catch" requirement.

I guess its your right to think everyone (officials, replay official, announcers, rules experts) but you are in the vast minority.

 

[ManBearClone]

Exactly my point. It is a judgement call. It is not an issue of "understanding the rule" or not. This is not a simple "by rule" situation. The rule as written created a new "gray area" as stated earlier in the thread that I responded to.


Many of us believe first the on field official, then the replay official, erred in their judgement and called the play incorrectly. In our judgement, Jarvis fully possessed the ball with his knees on the ground long enough for the play to be ruled dead at that point.

Reasonable people can disagree on that judgement, but many of us do get offended when we are told we dont understand the rule.

It is not nearly the judgement call you think it is. In fact it makes it a lot easier for the refs to review it. Hence there has been very very few controversial calls due to it. Other then by those who don't understand the rule. Pierra spent like two seconds on it and nobody has questioned the call other then basically ISU fans. There is a reason the rule was put in place and it was to eliminate the huge gray area that existed before. The alternative is to go back to basically trying to determine if he had possession when he hit the ground. That would mean a lot more micro reviewing like we had before. This was a freak play for sure but the rule handled it perfectly.

Also it has not lead to more injuries in the slightest.

 

[00clone]

Really? Understanding rules is anti ISU? Does that mean you have to not understand rules to be pro ISU? I know this place considers different opinions as trolling, but are rules trolling now too?

You're only here to fight, no matter the topic. I'm not taking the bait. Others may be dumb enough to.

 

[RolandRocket]

You're completely misunderstanding the idea of completing the process of the catch if you feel that way.

Perhaps you can explain it then? If a receiver catches and fully controls the ball, then falls to his knees, how long after that point does a defender have to dislodge the ball (for either and incompletion or interception)?

There is no definitive answer to that question in the rule, thus it is a judgement call. And we are back at the same point in the argument. Reasonable people on both sides of this argument can both fully understand the rule, and still disagree on "how long is long enough".

 

[cyfanatic13]

Perhaps you can explain it then? If a receiver catches and fully controls the ball, then falls to his knees, how long after that point does a defender have to dislodge the ball (for either and incompletion or interception)?

There is no definitive answer to that question in the rule, thus it is a judgement call. And we are back at the same point in the argument. Reasonable people on both sides of this argument can both fully understand the rule, and still disagree on "how long is long enough".

But according to you, a split second was long enough?

 

[3TrueFans]

Perhaps you can explain it then? If a receiver catches and fully controls the ball, then falls to his knees, how long after that point does a defender have to dislodge the ball (for either and incompletion or interception)?

There is no definitive answer to that question in the rule, thus it is a judgement call. And we are back at the same point in the argument. Reasonable people on both sides of this argument can both fully understand the rule, and still disagree on "how long is long enough".

Define "reasonable".

 

[LindenCy]

I think this horse has been beaten enough.

 

[00clone]

I think this horse has been beaten enough.

But, it was just getting tender!

 

[RolandRocket]

But according to you, a split second was long enough?

My judgement at the time, watching the play live, was that Jarvis caught the ball, went to his knees, and that the ball was taken from him after his knees were down. When watching various the video replays, I did not see an angle that provided indisputable video evidence that that judgement was incorrect. To me, the angles available are inconclusive. I have seen still photography (albeit from angles not available from any video) that, in my opinion confirms my original judgement.

I can respect your opinion that it was not long enough, even if I disagree with it.

My sense is, and the reason for my original post, is that I, and I think others in this thread are willing to discuss their opinion on a judgement call. But why does the discussion have to fall to the level of "You just dont understand the rule"?

 

[3TrueFans]

My judgement at the time, watching the play live, was that Jarvis caught the ball, went to his knees, and that the ball was taken from him after his knees were down. When watching various the video replays, I did not see an angle that provided indisputable video evidence that that judgement was incorrect. To me, the angles available are inconclusive. I have seen still photography (albeit from angles not available from any video) that, in my opinion confirms my original judgement.

I can respect your opinion that it was not long enough, even if I disagree with it.

My sense is, and the reason for my original post, is that I, and I think others in this thread are willing to discuss their opinion on a judgement call. But why does the discussion have to fall to the level of "You just dont understand the rule"?

You are correct that that's what happened, you're just wrong in your interpretation of what it means to complete a catch.

 

[PKT13]

You're only here to fight, no matter the topic. I'm not taking the bait. Others may be dumb enough to.

Don't sell yourself short.

What bait? I have been consistent since my first post in this thread. If the ball ended up on the ground, this would be a Dictionary Definition of "process of the catch" and would have clearly been an incomplete pass. It just so happens that #15 pulled a magic trick and ended up with the ball.

I am trying to educate, not fight. Some just don't want to learn.

 

[IAStubborn]

I don't think the ruling was absolute, it was a close play. I think there is a chance that if the ruling on the field was a catch, there is a chance it would have stood up too. I, along with many others, just don't think we got screwed.

But to answer your question, the receiver needs to control and possess the ball as he goes to the ground. If the photo is of Jarvis on his side with possession, then we could have a gripe. Again, review the Calvin Johnson play that really highlights the rule. Johnson caught the ball, had his knees down, and then used the ball to push himself up. The ball came loose and was ruled an incomplete pass because he did not complete the process of the catch. The rule is the same in college.

In your example, if the receiver drops to his knees, catches the ball with both knees down, and then the defender hits him and knocks the ball loose, it is an incomplete pass. Same exact situation here except the ball ends up in the K-State players arms for an INT.

I agree we didn't get screwed. I just don't like how the rule creates a situation that makes a guy not otherwise going down all the way to the ground a target. If contact is already initiated fine but if a guy catches and drops to his knee then gets hit the play should already be dead to avoid unnecessary hits.

 

[3TrueFans]

I agree we didn't get screwed. I just don't like how the rule creates a situation that makes a guy not otherwise going down all the way to the ground a target. If contact is already initiated fine but if a guy catches and drops to his knee then gets hit the play should already be dead to avoid unnecessary hits.

That's already how it works.

 

[VeloClone]

My judgement at the time, watching the play live, was that Jarvis caught the ball, went to his knees, and that the ball was taken from him after his knees were down. When watching various the video replays, I did not see an angle that provided indisputable video evidence that that judgement was incorrect. To me, the angles available are inconclusive. I have seen still photography (albeit from angles not available from any video) that, in my opinion confirms my original judgement.

I can respect your opinion that it was not long enough, even if I disagree with it.

My sense is, and the reason for my original post, is that I, and I think others in this thread are willing to discuss their opinion on a judgement call. But why does the discussion have to fall to the level of "You just dont understand the rule"?

What football move did Jarvis make after securing the ball? He has to make a move before he goes to the ground or the securing the ball through the ground part of the rule must be satisfied.

The fact that this thread has gone on so long with some still not getting it is frankly embarrassing.

 

[IAStubborn]

It is not nearly the judgement call you think it is. In fact it makes it a lot easier for the refs to review it. Hence there has been very very few controversial calls due to it. Other then by those who don't understand the rule. Pierra spent like two seconds on it and nobody has questioned the call other then basically ISU fans. There is a reason the rule was put in place and it was to eliminate the huge gray area that existed before. The alternative is to go back to basically trying to determine if he had possession when he hit the ground. That would mean a lot more micro reviewing like we had before. This was a freak play for sure but the rule handled it perfectly.

Also it has not lead to more injuries in the slightest.

How do you know the last sentance is true?
It was pretty fast and a tie breaks to it being an incomplete pass and I have no beef with the call. I have no beef with the rule in general but I do think it could be improved, by expanding the definition of a catch in these situations. I don't know if that would have even mattered for the jarvis call but what if the defender was a split second later in making contact? My concern is that those situations and the possibility of them would leave receivers wide open to big hits by middle linebackers trying to get a guy who went to his knees to drop it.

 

[IAStubborn]

That's already how it works.

Well then his answer is false.

 

[3TrueFans]

Well then his answer is false.

If the ball hasn't been ruled a catch yet then I wouldn't say a hit to jar it loose is unnecessary. If the hit comes after it's a catch and ruled down that's a late hit still.

 

[klamath632]

Perhaps you can explain it then? If a receiver catches and fully controls the ball, then falls to his knees, how long after that point does a defender have to dislodge the ball (for either and incompletion or interception)?

There is no definitive answer to that question in the rule, thus it is a judgement call. And we are back at the same point in the argument. Reasonable people on both sides of this argument can both fully understand the rule, and still disagree on "how long is long enough".

The receiver has to complete the process of the catch. Determination of the completion of the process will answer your question of "how long?"

 

[00clone]

Don't sell yourself short.

What bait? I have been consistent since my first post in this thread. If the ball ended up on the ground, this would be a Dictionary Definition of "process of the catch" and would have clearly been an incomplete pass. It just so happens that #15 pulled a magic trick and ended up with the ball.

I am trying to educate, not fight. Some just don't want to learn.

 

[browns4cy]

In my opinion it is a bad call only because we allowed it to happen. My only question on the play becomes this, take away the defender is Jarvis allowed to get up and run? Because the rule states he has to make a football play before being ruled a catch? Another thing a still photo doesn't show is the whistle. It the whistle is blown at that exact moment then it would have to be a catch. Like i said only a bad call because we allowed to let it happen. It definitely changed the momentum of the game though